Parliament of Whores

Home | Satire on U.S. Political Scene | Government Shame Record under Bush and Obama | Congressional Hall of Shame | Supreme Court above The Code of Judicial Conduct--Clarence Thomas example | Votes Bought: Corporate Campaign Contributions | Corporate Political Power | CORPORATE WELFARE: Helping Companies Grab More | The Pork Barrel | Illegal workers cost us billions | Flooding the job market with immigration--jk | Pension Plans changes, an overview | WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE LIKE THE REPUBLICANS--jk | Illegal workers and wages | IRAQ WAR CAUSED BY OIL--proof | HOW CONGRESS WORKS | $200 Billlion Housing Bail-out for Banks--Palast, 08 | SUV tax break | STATS ON CORPORATE CRIME | ELECTION FUNDING REFORM PASSED IN 6 STATES | KATRINA BUSH SHIT | WAR, Another Form of Corporate Welfare | The Iraq War Stimulates Our Economy | CONGRESS TRADES ON INSIDER INFORMATION | Another Election Stolen | Stolen election (Greg Palast, 6-06) | Right-wing Propaganda Machine--Brock & JK | Drug Lobby paid off with Medicare | Immigration Explosion | Constitutional Facade, pot ruling | OIL, war, hegemeny


The only way we are going to get the parliament of whores to stop bending over is for these prostitutes to pass a law prohibiting them from accepting gifts from their corporate Johns 

6 states offer alternative to corporate financing for state elections 

USA Today
October 27, 2004

Once again, big donors find new ways to skirt the rules

Trying to control the flow of money corrupting politics is a lot like trying to contain flooding on the Mississippi. Dikes can channel the torrent. But when there's a downpour, the river will keep on coming, breaking through at the point of least resistance.

So it has gone in this presidential campaign. The walls erected by the last set of political engineers, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., will largely have achieved their purpose: slowing the flow of illegal contributions — sometimes seven-figure checks — to political parties. But by the time the last vote is counted, a record $3.9 billion will have been showered on this year's campaigns for president and Congress, delivered through diverted means.

That number, projected last Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan monitoring group, is up 30% from four years ago. And that's conservative. Lax disclosure rules mask the scale of special-interest involvement.

What are beleaguered taxpayers to do? No doubt, they'll pay plenty when the recipients of that cash repay with government largesse.

Putting more dams in the river isn't going to help. Donors intent on buying influence can always find new legal channels. Candidates, lacking any other way to make their campaigns competitive, will take what's offered. In fact, they're forced to grovel for it.

There is a better option: Give honest candidates an alternative and, at the same time, expose the gifts taken by the rest.

Four states — Maine, Arizona, Vermont and North Carolina — already are offering the “clean money” option of public financing to candidates for some state offices. New Jersey will launch a similar program next year, and New Mexico in 2006.

This works. In Maine, where the movement started, nearly 80% of this year's legislature candidates rejected private money.

Defenders of the status quo deride public financing as welfare for politicians. Catchy. But also hooey. Even the highest estimate of the cost of Maine-style public financing at the federal level is only $10 per taxpayer — trivial compared with the cost of payoffs to special interests.

As for disclosure, the current system is a carefully constructed mirage.

All contributions over $200 to presidential and congressional candidates and national party committees must be disclosed. But reporting runs weeks or months late. Voters may not find out until after an election. Further, many non-profit groups with their own parallel campaigns don't have to report at all.

" The states' approach also avoids the problem inherent in all attempts to limit political donations: They undercut free speech.

Donations often pay for campaign commercials by candidates or independent groups. Can any government arbiter be trusted to say who can speak and how loudly — particularly if that speech is unpopular? Certainly not the Federal Election Commission, which tries to do the job now. Virtually every independent political observer agrees that its members are chosen by Congress to be ineffective. And if they were effective, free-speech problems would quickly sprout.

Giving candidates a chance to be honest and voters a way to watch the rest is a better option. It won't stop the flood of corrupt money. No system can. But it would protect voters and taxpayers far better than the patchwork system of levees in place now.

# # #



There is a conflict of interest when the legislators are dependent on election funding upon the very parties whom the policies they pass affect.  And in particular international corporations have very, very deep pockets. 

The Canadian government has addressed the problem that funds buys votes--both of legislators' and the public's.  First the Broadcasters Guidelines and CRTC rules require that each broadcaster make available up to 390 minutes for political parties to purchase.  This 390 minutes is divided  according to voter’s registration—there are 4 substantial parties in Canada.  Second a limit on spending is set per district (riding) according to the size of the electorate and the number of districts with candidates.  The 4 major parties each had a limit of $18,278,278.64.  In 2004 the law was amended so that if a party received more than 2% of the national vote and 5% in the ridings it contested, then it would qualify for payment equal to 60% of its election expenses (22.5% in 2000).  There is in addition a limit on donations made by third parties (individuals and groups) to $3,000 for each constituency and $150,000 for a national advertising campaign—set in 2000.  (These limits have been adjusted for inflation.)  We need funding reforms.

Condensed from by jk


If there lips are moving they are lying.  

The one thing you can be sure that they stand for, is to get elected.


If there lips are moving they are lying (said of politician)

To understand developments in our political system (both parties) one must understand the role of neoliberalism.  Any analysis which misses this connection is grossly inadequate.  (Neocons follow neoliberalism economic policies). 


We have an evil, evil system. Words such as imperialism, greed, corporate greed, neoliberalism, neoconservate, globalism, bought politicians, control of media are descriptive.   There are reasons why the labor movement has collapsed.  It is the politics of neoliberalism, an out growth of corporate greed.  Given how it opposes the public weal, we have devoted a section to expose just what neoliberalism is—a thing that the five corporations which own broadcasting will not do. 



Things have gotten worse, the hole the neocons has dug is much deeper.  The economic stats are worse than bad:  the trend is toward greater disparity of wealth and on top of that the U.S. is loaded with debt and imbalance of trade.  The debt can through fiscal austerity can be paid off (as some of it was under Clinton), but the trade imbalance will only grow due to the dismantling of are industrial base and the setting up of free trade agreements such as NAFTA.   The current foreign debt is equaled to over 70% of GDP, a ratio unmatched by far among industrialized nations.  To find out what economics is called the dismal science and the role of neoliberalism.